House Hearing on Space Leadership Preservation Act

[Proponent]

Thursday 25 February at 1500 UTC (1000 EST), the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology will hold a hearing on the Space Leadership Preservation Act and the "need for stability at NASA" (hearing charter attached).

Among other things, the Act resurrects the idea of a NASA administrator serving a term longer than a presidential administration.

[QuantumG]

My first thought as I read your description: I bet Mike Griffin will be there.

The witness list:

Panel 1:

The Honorable John Culberson
Member, U.S. House of Representatives
 
Panel 2:

The Honorable Michael Griffin
Former Administrator, NASA

Colonel Eileen Collins
USAF (Retired); NASA Astronaut, Commander, STS-93 and 114; NASA Astronaut, Pilot, STS-63 and 94

Ms. Cristina Chaplain
Director of Acquisition and Sourcing Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)
114th Congress

I can't tell if it's my cynicism that makes them so predictable or their predictability that makes me so cynical.

[Prober]

Thursday 25 February at 1500 UTC (1000 EST), the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology will hold a hearing on the Space Leadership Preservation Act and the "need for stability at NASA" (hearing charter attached).

Among other things, the Act resurrects the idea of a NASA administrator serving a term longer than a presidential administration.

the NSF search found


http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29700.msg1018775#msg1018775

[jongoff]

The frustrating thing is that what Culberson et al are trying to do here is to shield NASA from effective oversight, to make it harder to pull the plug on underperforming mega projects like CxP, JWST, SLS/Orion, etc. We wouldn't want to let executive oversight get in the way of ladling out the uncompeted multi-$B pork to politically connected prime contractors, now would we? And who needs to change directions on Congress's 10yrs plans for NASA? It's not like NASA is a high-tech agency whose plans could be impacted by changes in technology or in the marketplace...

So frustrating.

To badly paraphrase Krafft Ehricke: "If God wanted man to become a spacefaring species he'd have given us a Moon. If he wanted us to take as long as possible getting to that point, he'd have given us a Congress."

~Jon

[Rocket Science]

I was planning on going out to clear some snow, but I guess could watch this... Better put another pot of coffee on... yawn...

[Rocket Science]

It's Obama's fault...

[Proponent]

Does anybody know where the live stream is?

[guckyfan]

Does anybody know where the live stream is?

Just found

http://spaceref.com/live/house-committee-on-science-space-and-technology.html

[Rocket Science]

Does anybody know where the live stream is?

[Rocket Science]

My first thought as I read your description: I bet Mike Griffin will be there.

The witness list:

Panel 1:

The Honorable John Culberson
Member, U.S. House of Representatives
 
Panel 2:

The Honorable Michael Griffin
Former Administrator, NASA

Colonel Eileen Collins
USAF (Retired); NASA Astronaut, Commander, STS-93 and 114; NASA Astronaut, Pilot, STS-63 and 94

Ms. Cristina Chaplain
Director of Acquisition and Sourcing Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)
114th Congress

I can't tell if it's my cynicism that makes them so predictable or their predictability that makes me so cynical.

He still wants his old job back...

[Rocket Science]

Culberson: "the beancounters" (OMB) run NASA...

[Proponent]

So, to sum up Rep. Culberson's statement, the politician (Culberson) who short-circuited the planetary decadal survey by inserting a $4-billion-or-so Europa mission into NASA's budget and has decided that mission should fly on SLS is complaining about political interference at NASA?  Please pass the barf bag.  I suppose it's all consistent if he means that presidential interference is bad, but congressional interference is OK.

[Proponent]

Predictably, Griffin says CxP was going great until 2010 (like Rocket Science said, it's all Obama's fault!).  That's a very rosy view.....

[Rocket Science]

Nice to see Eileen Collins!

[guckyfan]

Nice to see Eileen Collins!

She is doing an all out attack on cancelling Constellation as a disastrous mistake. Seriously?

[Rocket Science]

Is it just me or did they just ignore mentioning the Commercial Crew Program?

[eric z]

  I just got tears in my eye listening to the Colonel. I fully agree with everything she just said. Very clear, concise and to the point,IMO.        

[notsorandom]

So, to sum up Rep. Culberson's statement, the politician (Culberson) who short-circuited the planetary decadal survey by inserting a $4-billion-or-so Europa mission into NASA's budget and has decided that mission should fly on SLS is complaining about political interference at NASA?  Please pass the barf bag.  I suppose it's all consistent if he means that presidential interference is bad, but congressional interference is OK.

The Decadal Survey wasn't sidestepped, it was followed. The Europa mission was the second highest priority "close behind" the MAX-C Mars rover. The Survey said do the rover if it can be kept under $2.5 billion. The 2020 Rover is basically MAX-C and is under that cost. The Survey then said the Europa mission should be done if the cost of the mission were brought down and the planetary budget supported it. So here we are a few years later, they found a way to do the mission for less than half of the quote in the Decadal Survey (EM is $2 billion btw) and money had been added to the planetary budget to support it. Here is the relevant section from the executive summary of Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022:

The second-highest-priority flagship mission for the decade 2013-2022 is the Jupiter Europa Orbiter (JEO). However, its cost as JEO is currently designed is so high that both a decrease in mission scope and an increase in NASA’s planetary budget are necessary to make it affordable. The projected cost of the mission as currently designed is $4.7 billion FY2015. If JEO were to be funded at this level within the currently projected NASA planetary budget it would lead to an unacceptable programmatic imbalance, eliminating too many other important missions. Therefore, while the committee recommends JEO as the second-highest-priority flagship mission, close behind MAX-C, it should fly in the decade 2013-2022 only if changes to both the mission and the NASA planetary budget make it affordable without eliminating any other recommended missions. These changes are likely to involve both a reduction in mission scope and a formal budgetary new start for JEO that is accompanied by an increase in the NASA planetary budget. NASA should immediately undertake an effort to find major cost reductions for JEO, with the goal of minimizing the size of the budget increase necessary to enable the mission.

[guckyfan]

OMG

Griffin says NASA must not be a playground for newly elected Presidents.

[Rocket Science]

Posey revising history...